Newsstand computer mag says Vista pretty much fixed
The computer magazine Maximum PC says its performance tests show Microsoft has fixed many of the initial problems with Vista. And it reports a Microsoft official having “conceded that Microsoft botched the Vista launch”.
The tests follow a previously unreported interview the magazine conducted with “high-ranking Windows product manager” in mid-June. With no public relations advisor on hand, it appears the source agreed to talk on the basis that he would not be identified, and couldn’t be directly quoted.
While the manager didn’t take all the responsibility – he blamed graphics and printer firms for shoddy drivers leading to instability – he did admit that User Account Control wasn’t implemented well, that Games for Windows had been a waste of time, and that Apple does a better job of appealing to consumers.
Speaking in a later on-the-record interview, Microsoft’s Erik Lustig discussed the problems caused by the way Vista is fundamentally designed to make it difficult to run flawed programs, and how the resulting incompatibilities have been seen by many as a problem with Vista itself.
Lustig insisted that Service Pack 1 fundamentally fixed the major problems in Vista’s original release. Maximum PC, which puts a particular emphasis on hardware for home use and gaming, decided to test these claims. The tests found that gaming performance is pretty much unchanged by Service Pack 1. However, network transfer speeds are improved, as is the performance in some power-hungry applications.
In the magazine’s view, although Vista still runs slightly slower than XP for the most part, it’s a sacrifice worth making for the other improvements. In their words, “You no longer need to sacrifice performance or stability if you want to run the latest version of Windows.”
However, Microsoft staff should probably not break out the party poppers and cone hats quite yet. The piece concludes by raising the issue that may be Vista’s next big challenge: that Windows 7 is so close, it’s arguably not worth upgrading from XP if you can afford to hang on another 18 months or so.
Related Posts:
September 12th, 2008
“not worth upgrading”? I guess, if you can put off buying a PC for another 18 months (or likely much longer given MS release slipping history). Kinda a strange perspective coming from MaximumPC…
September 13th, 2008
Quote: “The computer magazine Maximum PC says its performance tests show Microsoft has fixed many of the initial problems with Vista.”
Have Microsoft removed DRM from Vista, and issued a public apology for having included it in the first place?
Quote: “In the magazine’s view, although Vista still runs slightly slower than XP for the most part, it’s a sacrifice worth making for the other improvements.”
“Improvements” like UAC? Like a PC that takes forever to boot? Like flaky behaviour? Like a drastically shortened battery life on laptops? Like a hard drive that spins incessantly?
Quote: “You no longer need to sacrifice performance or stability if you want to run the latest version of Windows.”
Oh yes, I am really keen to get my copy of tarted-up Windows 2003 – er, sorry, my copy of Vista. The hardware will be really high-spec and very expensive, and Vista will run like a three-legged dog, but I’m a consumer, and I *MUST* have it. (Also, there is a rumour that with every purchase of Vista, Microsoft will be giving away a free pair of “Conquistador” shoes).
September 16th, 2008
I am so excited about $NEXT_VERSION of Windows.